Callicott's Theory Of Ecology Essay

Improved Essays
J Baird Callicott’s central criticism against animal liberationists (AL) is that the ethic is individualistic and limited to the concern of animal suffering; this ethic does not consider the morality of preserving the ecosystem. An AL argues that the interests of animals should be considered because they experience pain and suffering. They argue that the ethics of equality should be applied to other animals; all beings capable of suffering are worthy of equal consideration. Intelligence, value to a system, population size, or the destructive nature of the animal has no bearing in this consideration. Callicott comments that an AL viewpoint is as one sided as anthropocentrism; and they fail to grasp the moral implications to ecology. Ecology …show more content…
I believe granting animals equal rights would be disastrous to the environment, and negate the greatest good for all. Humans have a responsibility to our environment from both a responsibility to all things that live in it, as well as from a self-preservation standpoint. Decisions regarding moral responsibility reign beyond the rights of each individual unit in the ecosystem, with consideration to the greatest good for all. However, totally acknowledgement of Calicott’s premise is difficult as a unit within the ecosystem. Considering that as a human unit, I could be endorsing the culling of humans in support of a balanced system, I tend to lean with an anthropocentric view on Calicott’s ecocentric view. Calicott view of ecosystem balance might include culling via game hunting as appropriate human behavior because of over population of deer. I can logically understand this practice, but morally I remain conflicted with this idea. However, hypocritically I have no problem eating a hamburger or chicken sandwich. Therefore my objections are rooted in an ideal that animals in nature deserve a different level of respect than those that are raised for food. These are the situations that bring rise to ethics, the discussion of ethics,

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Is Animal Rights Wrong

    • 1630 Words
    • 7 Pages

    The point of Singer is based on two premise. The first one is the main theory of utilitarianism, and the second one is the equality of consideration. Therefore, if one of the premise is false, his argument cannot be proved. I do not agree with his second premise because human and animals are totally different beings, they should not be considerd equally. Singer uses the example of sexism and racism as his reasons to support animals liberation, but they are totally different cases.…

    • 1630 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Deontology thus provides a more compelling argument against animal research than utilitarianism. A major proponent of this outlook is Tom Regan, who has written on the subject in The Case for Animal Rights, in which he bases his argument against animal research on the sentience of animals and consequently their right to be respected as individuals. Regan argues that “if individuals have equal inherent value…we are to treat those individuals…in ways that respect their inherent value” (248). Exploiting animals for scientific knowledge therefore infringes upon their rights in that it disrespects their inherent value. One of deontology’s key principles is to treat individuals as ends rather than means.…

    • 1221 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    According to utilitarianism, the welfare of each must count. If in our moral decisions we do not consider the interests of someone who has positive or negative experiences, then we are not considering the total of happiness. This means that discrimination against non-human sensitive animals, which have positive or negative experiences or preferences, is incompatible with a theory such as utilitarianism. This approach must consider every part of suffering and every part of happiness, which involves considering both the experiences of nonhuman animals and those of humans. For this reason, early utilitarian theorists, such as J. Bentham or J.S.…

    • 1352 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Goodall also states that when coming to the realization that animals have the same right as we do to inhabit the earth, but there is a big communication barrier between us. This barrier might prevent humans to further understand what steps humans need to take in order to understand animal suffrage. Additionally, there are some exceptions for treatment of all living things. People will discuss that even the smallest insect should also receive the same treatment. I think moral treatments of any living thing should just be left to what the people and our brains think is morally right or wrong.…

    • 739 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    However, the points that Attfield criticizes makes it so Rolston’s argument for policies is not perfect and leaves things vague like his definition for development and what should be done about the humans’ overpopulation. (Attfield 465-466). Overall, both sides of the argument are agreeable and can be combined to advocate limiting development and maybe replenish the natural world. However, nothing will change unless action is taken to potentially save what wilderness is left and preserve a balance between the environment and human…

    • 1006 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In order to be a Speciest, one must believe and practice Speciesism, which is favoring one’s own species over a different animal species. Some acts of Speciesism have a greater impact than others, yet Singer believes that almost everybody is guilty of being a Speciest. There is a significant amount of evidence to prove Singer’s point. First, the main argument that humans are Speciests is that we continue using animals for food, even though it is not a necessity for survival. In fact, it is proven that meat is not a vital step for keeping good health (Singer para.…

    • 716 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Animal rights is an idea that non-human animals should be entitled to their own lives, and that they should be afforded similar consideration as human. I will argue that it is a better option for humans not to accept animal rights, and I will offer three reasons to support this claim. Firstly, Animal rights is limiting to the advancement in human health. Secondly, there are alternatives to accepting the Animal rights. Finally, Animal rights does not support animal control, which is important for sustaining ecosystems and the environment.…

    • 937 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Veganism Vs Vegetarianism

    • 991 Words
    • 4 Pages

    They’re food of course! Vegetarianism and veganism are wrong because meat is necessary for a human’s diet, it is costly and unethical to distribute vegetarian meals, and animals are on the earth for the benefit of humans and it is more than okay to eat them. Although vegetarian diets seem to be an enlightened idea to help the planet and ease suffering worldwide, this just isn’t true. The side effects of this decision outway and counteract the very issues that they try to solve as well as cause a multitude of other problems. A well known medical journal, WebMD, proves that purely vegetarian diets are harmful to all human bodies.…

    • 991 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The controversy over animal rights is one of the most argumentative in ethics and morality. Many people believe animals do not have rights, and that the people who support animal rights are liberals who need to find other outlets for their beliefs. Others feel it is our moral obligation to nurture animals as they cannot speak or act for themselves. Immanuel Kant’s view does not claim that it is permissible to cause pointless animal suffering, but he does insist that we have no obligations to the animals themselves. I will argue that humans do have obligations to the animals themselves.…

    • 835 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    If eating meat is a sin, then I might as well be a first class citizen with everyone else. Anything we do in this world would always have consequences especially when it is overdone. The answer is moderation, even over-sowing can have many negative effects. So if eating meat is being done in moderation, then it shouldn 't be a problem. The fact is, we are omnivorous, which means we can have the best of both worlds, I wouldn 't want to be stuck in a void of veggie eating drones, giving up the meaningful taste of life.…

    • 823 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays